Tom Lane wrote:
> This isn't really about tools. It's about who wants to put in the
> day-after-day, year-after-year drudge work to maintain the queue.
> Whoever wants to do the work can pick their tools...
I still think it would be best if the patch authors did the work. They
are the ones who care about the patch and want the review, and they're
in the best position to know what the status of a patch is. Others can
do it as well of course, in the spirit of a Wiki.
That leaves out most of the discussion threads, potential TODO items
etc. that Bruce collects in the patches queue. Depending on your
viewpoint that's either a good or a bad thing. It's good because it
keeps the patch queue short and relevant; we'll only have patches or
design proposals in the list that are genuinely waiting for review. But
it's bad because good patches from one-off submitters might fall through
the cracks.
That's where I'd love to have Bruce to help. He's good at following up
items and making sure nothing falls through the cracks. I don't mind
what tool he uses for doing that, the mailbox probably is the easiest
for that task. And that's the kind of work that's hard to do as a team.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
